Siduhe

If you're looking for comparisons, my bill has been around ?250 per annum for the last three years - we have a water meter and are two people in a semi detached modern house. The Thames Water site has us as "low" users of water compared to other similar houses in the area.

It's been a long time since I paid a float into a bank but as a teenage shop girl (during the period that ?1s existed I hasten to add) we used to scrutinise the payable in carefully for that reason and banks definitely did reject coins. In these days of depositing cash via machines/envelopes etc, it may well be different in terms of what happens in practice. The bank is definitely under no legal obligation to accept a fake coin if they spot it.

Leaving aside the macro-economic impact on the value of currency, I think the practical issue for shops and businesses is that those coins can't/shouldn't be paid into their bank accounts as mentioned above. So the business has sold an asset for (say) ?10, its books and records show a transaction for ?10 and it pays tax on the ?10 transaction, but when it comes to pay the money for that transaction into the bank, the business has only received ?9 which it can pay into its bank account and is left holding a token that doesn't have a remaining "value" of ?1. The business has no ability to change the value of the transaction or reduce the amount of tax it pays because the "value" of the transaction is the same. The bank has no obligation to accept a fake coin and won't give the business a real ?1 in exchange. Fake coins are basically fraud on the business that receives them. Of course it's a lot more complicated than that, because the vast majority of people who use a fake ?1 to pay for something don't intend to defraud the business and in reality, businesses keep the fake ?1 in their float if they won't be accepted by the bank and may then pay it back out to another customer (which is I think your point - does it really matter?) - I would say yes - as ultimately you're holding something which purports to be ?1 which isn't.

Here is the residents letter re Melford Road/Wood Vale road works today, for Aplespider and anyone else who didn't get a copy direct.

The cones are for roadworks at the Wood Vale/Melford Road junction which are taking place tomorrow. We got a letter today. Nothing to do with Thames Water as far as I can see.

On my walk past COC along Wood Vale this am, before the gates opened, I took a shot over the fence - this is about 12m after the end of Area F where they haven't cleared the inside of the fence, although they have cut it back. This is exactly what used to run along the entire fence by Wood Vale including Area F.

@taper - couldn't agree more. @Blanche Cameron - "an old hawthorne [sic] hedgerow" - I think you may be mis-remembering what what ran along the back wall of the cemetery along Wood Vale. There was the occasional hawthorn bush but it was largely brambles, cow parsley and other bushes and a favourite place to pick blackberries. As far from being an old hawthorn hedgerow as it's possible to be. Just to check I'm not mis-remembering, I've gone back to the Phase 1 docs (which I have kept and posted up on here before) and they confirm this: As I say above, it's incredibly difficult to engage with your group seriously about this issue when you make these grand pronouncements that aren't based on anything.

It's difficult to tell from the small photo, but I'm pretty sure that shot of "Wood Vale Meadows" [seriously?] isn't of Area F - which is what the second "after" photo shows. It looks much more like a shot taken from the top of Area Z facing up towards the rest of the cemetery. I've kept out of the recent discussions because I do think there's a genuine discussion to be had about the Council's plans especially at Camberwell New Cemetery even though I'm pro-creating burial space. Save Southwark Woods is getting in the way of that on here, but more hyperbole like this really isn't helping the cause.

My favourite sign from yesterday's march...

The practical issue may be proving that she lives at the property with you to a sufficient level to get the permit - if she's registered on the electoral roll there that looks like it should be enough for the online application form.

I assume you live in a Southwark CPZ? If so, which one? There's nothing on here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/on-street-permits/resident-parking-permits which suggests it's only one permit per household - so many houses are shared accommodation that would be pretty unworkable in my view, but there are some special rules in particular places. Best to ask Southwark if you want an absolutely clear answer for your street.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cringe whenever I see people applying eye liner > on a moving bus. I am a combination of cringing and then inward applause that they can get a straight line on a moving bus when I can't manage one in the safety of my own home...

@HopOne - I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is selfish to want to maximize or maintain the area's green space - different people have different views about whether using some of that space for burials is appropriate and (speaking as someone who's in favour of it) there's a genuine and valid debate to be had about that which most people are up for and which a lot of people are trying to engage in (including you and me). What I think is being referred to as selfish is the doubling down on any kind of sensible debate - wild statements that don't bear up to any scrutiny or being disingenuous about supporting "local burial for local people" when in fact no burial is being supported or saying that war graves are being desecrated or alleging religious discrimination or the really offensive tweets regarding comments that Councillors have supposedly made about Muslims. It's selfish (in my view) because then the debate then becomes about the tactics, not about the underlying issue - is it possible to offer burial space in a way that maintains a good level of green space in the area - if so how? I can't help but think this could have been resolved in a way that takes account of both sides' views by now if we were able to have a more sensible debate about it. Southwark are now incredibly defensive about this and (again, in my view) less willing to listen to people than they were, because of the way this matter has been played out.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today caught the 63 for the first time in a few > weeks. > Get to Blackfriars road and that's it - traffic > not moving so everyone gets off and walks. > > It's exercise anyway :) Yup, that's what I do now (as a long time 363/63 bus user). Bus to E&C. 22-28 min walk (depending on how windy it is) across Blackfriars to work. It's an hour door to door (I have to walk to the 63 stop), but I can pretty much guarantee my time of arrival at work and I get a bit of exercise. I've given up on peak time trains from Peckham Rye into Blackfriars - I will get the 10.04 if I'm heading into the office late for some reason.

@rendelharris, that makes complete sense to me - do you think that route could be made clearer for cyclists? Given the number I see getting tangled up in traffic on Newington Butts, I'm not sure that many people are aware of it.

One thing I have noticed (as a bus user who goes round E&C) is how difficult it seems to be for cyclists to get from Walworth Road, round Newington Butts to St. George's Road. There may be an approved cycle route which I don't see but turning right from Walworth Road and onto the segregated cycle lane outside the Metropolitan Tabernacle seems really difficult for cyclists to do. I've lost count of the number of times a cyclist has either cut in front of or been cut up by a bus as they are both trying to use the bus lane on Newington Butts. It's really bad there because the traffic gets very snarled up and the buses are trying to pull in and out of the stops there and there is a real temptation for cyclists to try and cut into traffic rather than across to the segregated lane.

There's Oyster Boy at Colombia Road market and elsewhere, so yes! http://www.thesuntavern.co.uk/interview-oyster-boy/

If you look on the TFL Traffic Status Updates website, these works still don't show up, but oddly enough they do if you change the date to 14 March 2017 (even though the start date of the works in the detail below is 13 March). According to the site, these are not TFL works but "Borough" works, so presumably Southwark?:

I can't work out if it's crazy or common sense to do two major bits of road works in the same area at the same time. Crazy in the sense of double the travel pain or common sense to get all the pain out the way in the shortest possible time.

Snooks, looks like it from the letter that James posted but no details - "Bus route P13 will be on diversion while Melford Road is closed so please allow extra time to complete your journey"

Thanks James. We are on Melford and haven't received a letter yet, so this is very helpful.

Panic not uncleglen - the bit of road being resurfaced is just the stretch by the parade of shops opposite the Grove Tavern. There was a water leak there recently and the patch surface is pretty bad so this is planned work following the repair. Traffic will be bad though on those nights. No getting round that.

Just drove past a yellow road sign which promises resurfacing works on Lordship Lane (assume nr Grove Tavern as sign is by Melford Road) 13-16 March, 9pm to 5am. We live nearby and haven't had a letter and I can't see anything obvious on roadworks register, but if this is going ahead then traffic will be bad next week in the evenings!

There was a good article in the FT recently which explained some of the complexities - I think I can post an open link here that anyone can read: https://www.ft.com/content/90c2e798-f305-11e6-8758-6876151821a6?accessToken=zwAAAVq33FZ4kdOQwueY8wUR5tOHWGh2FRghpg.MEYCIQCnffrGOcwjSlhyk4KhaDFgqw2k_snJgEqk2XJB3ufW2gIhAOXFxycBMyovoo63bA-EeOcbu97ERhxVv6hWeFdAUYFv&sharetype=gift I have absolutely no doubt that one of the drivers for the move is that the current hair salons don't fit nicely into the current vision for a regenerated Rye Lane and I understand why those working in the salons are worried it will hurt their business.

Wow, I just looked at the @SouthwarkWoods twitter feed. Sample tweet: "Read @peterjohn6 @lb_southwark says "Discrimination? Muslims & Jews are free to eat our pork pies like everyone!". Links to an article where nothing of the kind is said or even hinted at. I don't even know where to start with that.